1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They are at the doors of this Court, calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.5011 of 2024 being tried for offences punishable under Section 306 and 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt. Sadhana S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Ranganath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

Accused Nos.1 and 2, present petitioners are husband and wife. The 1st petitioner is a farmer and the 2nd petitioner is said to be homemaker. The husband and wife stand accused of driving/abetting one Eregowda, the complainant’s father to the tragic end of self destruction – suicide. A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent alleging that on 10-08-2023 the father of the complainant commits suicide. The commission of suicide is complained of on 10-08-2023 itself. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.95 of 2023 against these two petitioners, arraigning them as accused 1 and 2. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The concerned Court registers C.C.No.1308 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. Since the offence was punishable under Section 306, the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, which is now being tried as S.C.No.5011 of 2024. The continuation of trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Smt Sadhana S Desai would vehemently contend that the roots of the allegation lie on a financial dispute stemming from the execution of a sale deed, on a fact that the father of the complainant had not consented to affix his signature on the sale deed and he was convinced when he was offered ₹50,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that accused Nos.1 and 2 later started demanding the amount of ₹50,000/- and when it was not returned, both the accused forcibly took away 4 goats belonging to the father of the complainant. This is what has driven the father of the complainant to commit suicide, is the crux of the complaint. The learned counsel would contend that there is legal and valid transaction of sale of the property belonging to the father of the complainant to the hands of accused 1 and 2. The entire consideration is paid after due diligence. The family members of the complainant have also raised a dispute on the said sale in O.S.No.860 of 2023. The said dispute is pending adjudication before the concerned Court. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there is no warrant for these petitioners to have taken away 4 goats of the complainant’s father and the complainant’s father committing suicide on the said incident of taking away of 4 goats. The learned counsel would further submit that none of the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are even present in the case at hand and seeks dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent after entering appearance, appeared once and sought adjournment on 10-12-2024. This Court passed the following order on the said date:

“At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant, list this matter on 19.12.2024, in the fresh matters list. Interim order granted earlier, is extended till the next date of hearing.

Objections, if any, by then.”

Again, the matter was adjourned on 19-12-2024 to 09-01-2025. On 09-01-2025 the Court passed the following: Desai.

“Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Sadhana

There is no impediment on behalf of the second

respondent-complainant.

List this mater on 23.01.2025 awaiting the appearance of Sri Ranganath Reddy.

Interim order subsisting shall continue till the next date of hearing.”

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent was not present. On 23-01-2025 this Court passed the following order:

“List the matter on 30.01.2025. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Sadhana S. Desai.

This Court on 9/1/2025 had passed the following order:

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Sadhana Desai.

There is no impediment on behalf of the second respondent-complainant.

List this matter on 23.01.2025 awaiting the appearance of Sri Ranganath Reddy.

Interim order subsisting shall continue till the next date of hearing.”

The matter was adjourned to today, awaiting the appearance of the counsel for the complainant, who was on that day absent.

Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the complainant, either through V.C. or physically.

The issue in the lis revolves around abetment to suicide. The issue stands answered by plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, which are noted in the order dated 20.11.2024. Subsequent to the said order, the Apex Court has again reiterated that abetment to suicide will have to meet the ingredients of Section 107 in 2025 SSC OnLine SC 107 and 2025 SSC OnLine SC 120. Therefore, as a last chance, awaiting the appearance of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-component, list this matter on 30.01.2025 for further hearing.

It is made clear that in the event the counsel for the 2nd respondent would not be present, the orders shall be passed hearing the counsel for the petitioner Smt Sadhna Desai.”

Even on the aforesaid day, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent was not present. This Court had passed the order that in the event the counsel for the 2nd respondent would not be present, orders would be passed on hearing the counsel for the petitioners. The matter was adjourned to 30-01-2025. Even on 30-01-2025 there was no representation on behalf of the counsel for the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor was heard in the matter.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the case is being tried by the Court of Sessions on the charge sheet being filed and the matter committed to the Court of Sessions. He would contend that the transaction between the parties could be there. It may be pending before the civil Court in O.S.No.860 of 2023. Merely because proceedings are pending, it cannot be said that there is no abetment to suicide by the petitioners who are said to have given ₹50,000/- at the time of signature on the sale deed and later went on asking ₹50,000/- back. Unable to bear mental harassment and left with no choice, the father of the complainant had committed suicide. Therefore, there is a clear case of coxing or goading which would become abetment to suicide. He would submit that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The transaction between the father of the complainant and the petitioners has happened on 05-07-2023. It is the averment in the complaint that at the time of registration of sale deed ₹50,000/- was paid to the father of the complainant. This was for affixing his signature on the sale deed. The petitioners, after the sale, are alleged to have demanded the sum of ₹50,000/- that was given to the father of the complainant and the allegation is that when the said amount was not received by them, they forcibly took away 4 goats of the father of the complainant. Based upon the said incident, the father of the complainant commits suicide on 10-08- 2023. The complaint then emerges from the 2nd respondent on the very day. Since the entire issue has triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 of the FIR. It reads as follows;

“10. ಪ,x³2 ವತx2ಾ3 ವ68ð 9ವ6fi&G

The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

The summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioners on 07-08-2023 had admittedly abused the father of the complainant and in lieu of ₹50,000/- that was paid to the father of the complainant, they took away 4 goats by hurling the words “go and die”. Therefore, two circumstances the complaint narrates or the summary of the charge sheet would depict are that the petitioners have uttered the words “go and die” against the father of the complainant and allegedly took away 4 goats towards repayment of ₹50,000/-. Whether the words spoken “go and die” would amount to an offence for abetment to suicide is what is required to be considered. Uttering of words “go and die” whether would amount to an abetment under Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

9. Section 306 of the IPC which deals with abetment to suicide reads as follows:

“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 306 directs that whoever abets the commission of suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. Therefore, the soul of Section 306 is abetment. What is abetment is found in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows:

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 107 clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section 306, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 is intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, what is required is intentional mindset of the accused which would be mens rea. It must be a positive act of the accused to instigate commission of suicide.

10. The Apex Court has considered interpretation of the aforesaid provision qua the abuse “go and die”. The Apex Court, in the case of SWAMY PRAHALADDAS v. STATE OF M.P.1, has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

2. The impugned order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is in confirmation of the order of the Court of Session, whereby, the appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 306 IPC. The said order has been passed in this background:

Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is alleged to have had two paramours, one was the deceased and the other is the appellant. It is alleged that there was sexual jealousy between the two. The deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her heart was with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6- 1992, all the three had a quarrel while sharing their morning tea. During that course, the appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to go and die. The prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went home in a dejected mood, whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide has been termed as the direct cause for the treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone stands committed to the Court of Session to face trial because of her preferential treatment to the appellant.

3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court and that of the Court of Session are thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance where after a quarrel the accused is said to have remarked to the deceased to go and die. The Apex Court holds that mere utterance of the kind will not amount to suicide. The Apex Court in the case of SANJU v. STATE OF M.P.2 was also considering a case where the accused in the fit of anger uttered the words ‘go and die’. The Apex Court holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”. For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.

… … …

14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court then considers the purport of abetment and holds that it involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person to suicide. The Apex Court in the case of S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN3 has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.”

(Emphasis supplied)

A little later, in the case of AMALENDU PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL4 the Apex Court holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section

306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

14. The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.”

(Emphasis supplied)

A decade later, the Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB5 has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration:

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

***

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined whether the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH6 holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order [Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6917] and other material placed on record. Except the self-serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that the deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that the appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 4-5-2018 the deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he had carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased.

9. “Abetment” involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

10. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that the appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306IPC.

11. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused the deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also.

12. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras 12- 13)

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306IPC.””

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, later, in the case of DAXABEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT7 has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

8. Section 306 of the IPC reads:

“306. Abetment of suicide. -If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. As argued by Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, what is required to constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Further, in the case of KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA8, the Apex Court has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

3. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was earlier residing in the house of the deceased as a tenant though on the date of the incident he was residing elsewhere as the term of the lease agreement had expired. On 05.07.2000 at about 09:00 AM, the deceased was returning home after dropping the children of her sister in the school. When she had reached near the Canara Bank, the appellant was waiting there and teased her to marry him. The deceased refused to respond. Appellant threatened her that if she did not agree to marry him, he would destroy the family of her sisters, outrage their modesty and would kill them. After she reached home, she informed her sisters about the above incident over telephone. Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house. The neighbours saw through the window of the house the deceased lying on the floor in a painful condition. They got the door of the house opened. The deceased was suffering from pain due to consumption of poison. In the meanwhile, one of her sisters and her husband came to the house. All of them took the deceased to the Nirmala Devi Hospital whereafter she was shifted to the Mission Hospital. Ultimately, she died on 06.07.2000 at 07:30 PM.

... … …

60. In India attempt to commit suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. This section provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But once the suicide is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then obviously such a person would be beyond the reach of the law; question of penalising him would not arise. In such a case, whoever abets the commission of such suicide would be penalised under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC reads as under:

306. Abetment of suicide- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

61. Thus, as per Section 306 of IPC, if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

62. The crucial word in Section 306 of IPC is ‘abets’. ‘Abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC reads thus:

107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

63. From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is deducible is that a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly, it is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.

64. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M. Mohan v. State1 went into the meaning of the word suicide and held as under:

37. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In

short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

65. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, this Court delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or ‘instigation’ and held as under:

20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

66. Thus, this Court held that to ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

67. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State3, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This Court held as follows:

17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).

18. Similarly, “urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.

68. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal4, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.

Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

70. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Ude Singh (supra).

71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana5, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC held as follows:

9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

72. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this

Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

73. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

… … …

80. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the case of KUMAR supra considers the entire spectrum of law and holds that human mind is an enigma. There can be myriad reasons for a man or woman or anyone to commit or attempt to commit suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself is relevant.

11. The Apex Court again in the case of NIPUN ANEJA v. STATE OF U.P.9, has held as follows:

“16. This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed that—

“7. ….The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein.”

17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:—

“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.

. . . .

15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.”

16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:—

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.””

18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:—

“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019)

17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:—

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:—

“44. …It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following:

(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that the test that the Court should adopt in such cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of materials on record whether there is anything to indicate prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act i.e., suicide. Therefore, what is necessary was mens rea. The Apex Court further observes that the High Court should have examined the case on the circumstances narrated in para-23 supra. None of those circumstances exist in the case at hand.

12. In the subsequent judgment, the Apex Court in the case of MAHENDRA AWASE v. STATE OF M.P.10, while considering the entire spectrum of law has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to RiteshMalakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.

20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.

21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC should not be casually registered by the Police only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.

13. Yet again, the Apex Court in the case of LAXMI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL11, has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:

“306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:

“107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person

or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.

9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:

“8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.

…

13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.”

10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra2, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below:

“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.”

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of ‘instigation’. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3, this Court observed:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.4, wherein the Supreme Court held:

“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.”

13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the High Court and Trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant. We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC. There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide.

14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, has considered this very issue and elucidating what should be the ingredients in an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, has clearly held that utterance of the words “go and die” in the absence of mens rea, in the action of the accused, would all lead to obliteration of the proceedings against the accused.

14. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are noticed on the principle elucidated by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is, the crime being loosely laid against these petitioners only to assuage the distress of the family of the deceased. The financial transaction between the deceased and the petitioners is a matter of record. 4 goats being taken away is the allegation. When they were taken away, did they even lead to the ultimate act of commission of suicide is no where narrated either in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet. All that both the complaint and the charge sheet would narrate is that the petitioners hurling abuses saying ‘go and die’ and taking away the goats. These facts now depict mens rea on the part of the petitioners, so as to abet the suicide of the father of the complainant. Even if it is construed that they have uttered the word “go and die”, it would not mean in a literal sense, with intention to abet the suicide of the father of the complainant. The inter-play of the facts and the law would lead to obliteration of the crime.

15. The issue, whether this Court can entertain the matter at the stage of pendency of trial, but before the charges could be framed, is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF U.P.12, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

“13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that the Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or even extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should read between the lines, looking to attending circumstances, emerging from the record and with due care and circumspection try to analyze the complaint.

The Apex Court further holds that this Court need not restrict itself only to the stage of the case, but is empowered to take into consideration, overall circumstances leading to the initiation and materials collected in the course of the investigation. The Apex Court clearly holds that if the matter is even at the stage of investigation, this Court should read between the lines and obliterate the crime if it is an abuse. The case at hand is at the stage of framing of charges which is not yet done. Therefore, all the evidence is clearly available and no evidence would point at the guilt of the accused. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, as afore-quoted, permitting further proceeding against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.5011 of 2024 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanakapura arising out of charge sheet bearing No.64 of 2023 filed by Kodihalli Police Station stand quashed qua the petitioners.